What can be done? Iran

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Azure

Rest assured, Israel will never let Iran get nuclear weapons.

Then by that conclusion, you will assume that Israel is going to war within the next 1-3 years? Because that's how far away Iran is from becoming a nuclear state.

If Israel strikes first, rest assured that not only will the Islamic community come down on Israel, NATO will come into conflict with Iran and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as well.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by T@T

When has Israel ever threatened anyone with a nuke? when has Israel admitted to even possessing them?

There doing just fine suppling the terrorists of Iraq with weapons,bombs and explosives. if it wasn't for Iran the war would probably be over in Iraq by now. Make no mistake, Ahmadinejad loves this war, it helps his cause of hatred of the free world.

So you have no concern that a country that openly supports terrorism, openly says they want to kill every Jew now is close to developing a nuclear bomb and you could care less?

Israel has never threatened to use nuclear weapons on anyone, but it is an open secret that they have them.....which is why I think it is funny that they are calling out Iran for trying to make nukes to protect themselves.
Iran has done nothing wrong here. They are allowed to have nuclear powerplants under the NPT. Here is a good article on Isreals' special deal with the U.S. on nukes.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cade-old-secr/

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Then by that conclusion, you will assume that Israel is going to war within the next 1-3 years? Because that's how far away Iran is from becoming a nuclear state.

If Israel strikes first, rest assured that not only will the Islamic community come down on Israel, NATO will come into conflict with Iran and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as well.

Like they came down on Israel when Israel destroyed Saddam's nuclear ambitions?

You place too much credit on a fractured Middle East/Islamic community.

Besides, Israel won't start a direct war with Iran. They'll just take out the nuclear facilities.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

A coalition would be extremely effective, actually. Hezbollah has proven that it can cause mass panic through almost-genius use of strategic propaganda and fluid communicaitons during the 2006 Lebanon War. Their rocket attacks into Haifa were only a partial show of their military capabilities, and with Syrian backing, their missile lobs could be a force to be reckoned with.

Disagree. Israel was pulling it's punches a lot more than Hezbollah was. In a desperate situation Lebanon and Syria get sent back to the stone age within a few days.

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Additionally, Hamas would probably increase suicide attacks ten-fold; something that will not sit well with the Israeli public and the Western governments. This doesn't even include Islamic Jihad or the al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade.

Hamas has already tried to increase suicide bombings in the past. It has lost total effectiveness with Israel's roadchecks, fences, blockades, etc...

The threat of waves and waves of suicide bombings no longer exists.

Much of Hamas' former ability to attack Israel was based on the manipulation of rights an trust. In a time of war Israel wouldn't have any trouble getting their supreme court to allow further stripping of these rights. Various tactics that the Israeli Supreme Court has deemed unlawful, would become fair game.

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Then there's the problem of al-Qaeda licking their chops at this very situation. Their numbers and strength would surge in the event of another war againg Hamas / Hezbollah, which would most definitely be spun as the Jews being the aggressors and attacking the Islamic faith.

The damaged that can be done by micro-parties and insurgent groups is second to none in terms of how much the media can affect public opinion.

Once again, how do they get into the country. Israel has essentially constructed a fortress around itself. Al-Queda has been trying to attack Israeli civilian targets for decades without any success.

I'm not advocating an Israeli attack in any way, as hundreds of thousands would die and it would be an absolute tragedy. I just don't think Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria are this menancing threat people are making them out to be.

Israel bombed the Syrian nuclear sites a couple of years ago and Syria did nothing but stand back and watch.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by blankall

Israel bombed the Syrian nuclear sites a couple of years ago and Syria did nothing but stand back and watch.

Iran is not Syria. I'm finding it odd at how you're comparing two entirely different nations via an Israeli air strike. Iran can hit back. Their Fajr-3 MIRV Missiles can do far more damage to Israel than Syria could ever do, capable of carrying three warheads and far more powerful than anything Syria could lob.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Iran is not Syria. I'm finding it odd at how you're comparing two entirely different nations via an Israeli air strike. Iran can hit back. Their Fajr-3 MIRV Missiles can do far more damage to Israel than Syria could ever do, capable of carrying three warheads and far more powerful than anything Syria could lob.

I think you've missed my point. I was responding to the point that Syria/Hezbollah/Hamas are an effective alliance.

I was using this example to illustrate how militarily weak Syria has become. I was not commenting on Iran in any way.

If you read my previous post, I agree with you on the threat of the Iranian missiles:

"I wonder if Israel would get involved in this, well directly anyway. Iran isn't nuclear yet but they do have a solid collection of missiles to lob at Israel."

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by blankall

Disagree. Israel was pulling it's punches a lot more than Hezbollah was. In a desperate situation Lebanon and Syria get sent back to the stone age within a few days.

Israel has admitted that a public diplomacy effort is the second part of a comprehensive military strategy. After the establishment of the Winograd Commission in 2006, their "hasbara" efforts, or "explanation" for justifying attacks is a prominent focal point after they suffered serious damage to their foreign relations with a number of countries due to claims of brutal human rights abuses and other atrocities (Hezbollah was also guilty of this as well to an extent).

Hezbollah created a "strategic perspective failure" for the Israeli, and thus won the media war through a successful information warfare campaign, which has far reaching effects on Middle Eastern households. Hezbollah was able to use the Internet, their satellite TV station Al-Manar and and a transparent voice through leader Hassan Nasrallah to seriously impact the psyche of Israeli citizens, which, and experts agree, had far more important consequences than the actual phsyical outcome.

Hezbollah, and organizations like it, are far more effective than you think.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Iran is not Syria. I'm finding it odd at how you're comparing two entirely different nations via an Israeli air strike. Iran can hit back. Their Fajr-3 MIRV Missiles can do far more damage to Israel than Syria could ever do, capable of carrying three warheads and far more powerful than anything Syria could lob.

Well its quite obvious that Iran will retaliate. But everyone else is going to stand by and watch. Especially the other countries you listed.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well its quite obvious that Iran will retaliate. But everyone else is going to stand by and watch. Especially the other countries you listed.

Well, that's a matter of opinion then. And nobody knows for sure. Iran is a known backer of both Syria and Hezbollah. A military incursion into Israeli territory using Iranian missiles in a 'rolling barrage' formation with Hezbollah / Syrian conventional armor and infantry is not out of the question. Besides, both Lebanon and Syria claim that the northern Shebaa areas next to the Golan Heights is Lebanese territory, and have held that position since 1967 despite U.N. disagreeance. If Iran starts lobbing missiles their way, Syria and Hezbollah / Lebanon are likely to get involved. That's my opinion anyways.

[CaptainCrunch]

Israel never signed the NPT while Iran has signed it. Thats why the there's a problem. The concern is also that Iran is not in compliance with the agreed upon terms of the NPT.

The questions need to be asked about why Iran is upgrading their centriguge program which will supposedly allow them to more easily create weapons grade materials.

Also why did they build a heavy water plant based around the use of Plutonium?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Israel has admitted that a public diplomacy effort is the second part of a comprehensive military strategy. After the establishment of the Winograd Commission in 2006, their "hasbara" efforts, or "explanation" for justifying attacks is a prominent focal point after they suffered serious damage to their foreign relations with a number of countries due to claims of brutal human rights abuses and other atrocities (Hezbollah was also guilty of this as well to an extent).

Hezbollah created a "strategic perspective failure" for the Israeli, and thus won the media war through a successful information warfare campaign, which has far reaching effects on Middle Eastern households. Hezbollah was able to use the Internet, their satellite TV station Al-Manar and and a transparent voice through leader Hassan Nasrallah to seriously impact the psyche of Israeli citizens, which, and experts agree, had far more important consequences than the actual phsyical outcome.

Hezbollah, and organizations like it, are far more effective than you think.

Hezbollah may have won a media war, but I don't see how that would reflect on future military success.

Like I said before Israel was pulling its punches. In a situation where Israel was genuinly threatened they simply wouldn't do so. Also, the media would have a much harder time painting Hezbollah as victems if Iran was directly involved.

In any war with Iran, Hezbollah would be more of a nuisance than genuine threat.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Well, that's a matter of opinion then. And nobody knows for sure. Iran is a known backer of both Syria and Hezbollah. A military incursion into Israeli territory using Iranian missiles in a 'rolling barrage' formation with Hezbollah / Syrian conventional armor and infantry is not out of the question. Besides, both Lebanon and Syria claim that the northern Shebaa areas next to the Golan Heights is Lebanese territory, and have held that position since 1967 despite U.N. disagreeance. If Iran starts lobbing missiles their way, Syria and Hezbollah / Lebanon are likely to get involved. That's my opinion anyways.

The last thing that Syria would want to do is to have their army combine with Hezbollah. The other last thing is to go head to head with Israel's army, in terms of armour and infantry Israel would hand them their lunch in a hat.

Plus the gloves would completely come off in terms of a response, if Syria was actively working with and supporting Hezbollah in terms of a military alliance.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by blankall

Hezbollah may have won a media war, but I don't see how that would reflect on future military success.

Like I said before Israel was pulling its punches. In a situation where Israel was genuinly threatened they simply wouldn't do so. Also, the media would have a much harder time painting Hezbollah as victems if Iran was directly involved.

In any war with Iran, Hezbollah would be more of a nuisance than genuine threat.

Well just so you know, the Winograd Commission also called the military campaign a failure, citing numerous tatical, operative, logistical and intelligence failures that caused more damage than good.

Hezbollah by no means had the strength to fight against the Israeli military; I'm not disputing that. But to see the 2006 Lebanon War as a successful military campaign by Israel is perplexing. Even Israel knows that.

[CaptainCrunch]

I certainly didn't believe that the 2006 campaign was a success. But you have to ask yourself if it was training, weapons and tactics that caused the problems of the rules of engagement and the loss of the publicity war. For the most part Israel fought that war with kid gloves on. Dropping brochures warning of attacks, not taking out missile launch sites en masse because of their location.

Israel has always fought a high speed agressive type of battle, in 2006 they fought a very cautious and inflexible style of warfare.

But if for example Syria and or Hezbollah were to invade Israel in a military fashion, I'm pretty sure that the gloves would come off.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Well just so you know, the Winograd Commission also called the military campaign a failure, citing numerous tatical, operative, logistical and intelligence failures that caused more damage than good.

Hezbollah by no means had the strength to fight against the Israeli military; I'm not disputing that. But to see the 2006 Lebanon War as a successful military campaign by Israel is perplexing. Even Israel knows that.

What are you arguing here? That if Israel hit Iranian nuclear targets, Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria will launch a conventional attack on Israel proper, and that this would be a problem for the Israelis? Sure, about as much of a problem as Polish cavalry was for German panzers in 1939 (this is an urban legend btw, but you get the point). If Israel attacks Iran, Syria et al will bravely... do nothing, aside from verbal diarrhea...

[Azure]

If you ignore the fact that Israel was obviously holding back from using their full military force then yes, maybe Hezbollah had limited success in 2006.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But if for example Syria and or Hezbollah were to invade Israel in a military fashion, I'm pretty sure that the gloves would come off.

I don't know, Captain. If Israel can't even fight a limited war successfully on tactical, operational and strategic levels, how can they be expected to fights a total war against a country like Iran and its proxy allies?

The gloves may come off, but that won't save them from the onslaught of an Iranian shower of missiles the likes of which Israel has never seen.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Well just so you know, the Winograd Commission also called the military campaign a failure, citing numerous tatical, operative, logistical and intelligence failures that caused more damage than good.

Hezbollah by no means had the strength to fight against the Israeli military; I'm not disputing that. But to see the 2006 Lebanon War as a successful military campaign by Israel is perplexing. Even Israel knows that.

It was a failure in the sense they lost 60 troops when they should have lost 30. It was hardly a crushing military defeat. The Israeli army was criticized for ineffective use of urban warfare techniques. The same people calling that war a failure were the ones calling the later war in Gaza a complete success. Israel was able to totally knock out military capability and hit the majority of their targets while only losing a handful of soldiers, many to friendly fire. The war in Gaza proved to many inside the Israeli army that Israel just needed to shake off teh rust.

Like I said before, if push came to shove, Israel would simply take the gloves off.

Once again, I don't want any of this to happen and think it would be an absolute tragedy. If Hezbolla/Hamas is dumb enough to try and launch some kind of all out counter-attack against Israel, they should be prepared for a disastrous outcome.

I think there is a good chance Iran would give orders to Hezbollah to attack Israel. It would be extremely unfortunate for the innocents in Lebanon. Iran has shown in the past it clearly does not care about those people.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I don't know, Captain. If Israel can't even fight a limited war successfully on tactical, operational and strategic levels, how can they be expected to fights a total war against a country like Iran and its proxy allies?

The gloves may come off, but that won't save them from the onslaught of an Iranian shower of missiles the likes of which Israel has never seen.

But in the case of a conventional invasion, or even a mass increase in tempo concerning missile launches, I'm pretty sure that Israel wouldn't concern itself with the preservation of civillian lives. Israel didn't fight a total war in 2006, they almost treated it like a police action.

I will give credit, Hezbollah fought a smart war by hiding in schools and hospitals and in one case a UN food warehouse. They painted vehicles in red cross colors to transport their "Soldiers" around.

You can bet that if Israel was to fight a we don't care, we're here to destroy the threat on our terms war, the result would be far bloodier then 2006.

You're right about the missile threat from Iran, and the possibility of Iran using chemical weapons does loom fairly large. I would expect that before any conventional mission got underway that Israel would take out Iran's air assets then try to destroy as many of the mobile launch systems that they can find.

Plus if Iran did use Chemical weapons, Israel would probably classify it as the use of weapons of mass destruction, and under their rules of engagment would retalliate with limited nuclear weapons. Probably smaller bombs dropped from aircraft on railway crossings and road crossings as a warning.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But in the case of a conventional invasion, or even a mass increase in tempo concerning missile launches, I'm pretty sure that Israel wouldn't concern itself with the preservation of civillian lives. Israel didn't fight a total war in 2006, they almost treated it like a police action.

I will give credit, Hezbollah fought a smart war by hiding in schools and hospitals and in one case a UN food warehouse. They painted vehicles in red cross colors to transport their "Soldiers" around.

You can bet that if Israel was to fight a we don't care, we're here to destroy the threat on our terms war, the result would be far bloodier then 2006.

You're right about the missile threat from Iran, and the possibility of Iran using chemical weapons does loom fairly large. I would expect that before any conventional mission got underway that Israel would take out Iran's air assets then try to destroy as many of the mobile launch systems that they can find.

Plus if Iran did use Chemical weapons, Israel would probably classify it as the use of weapons of mass destruction, and under their rules of engagment would retalliate with limited nuclear weapons. Probably smaller bombs dropped from aircraft on railway crossings and road crossings as a warning.

In addition, I think Iran would discover quickly how few "Islamic" friends it really has.

The Israeli's and the American's aren't the only ones who don't want a nuclear-armed Iran. Egypt and Saudi would have to consider arming themselves similarly if it ever came to that. Neither of those governments would probably be put out if Israel ended the threat for them.

Cowperson